house judiciary subcommittee marks the centennial of the tulsa oklahoma race massacre with testimony from survivors and outside groups dedicated to upholding the historical significance of that event. at 10:00, there is a hearing on border security resources with the acting commissioner of the u.s. customs and border protection. at turn 30 a.m., energy secretary -- at 10:30 a.m., the energy secretary testifies on the president's budget on her department. bloomberg law reporter kimberly robinson joins us to discuss the supreme court's decision to hear a case from mississippi that some fear could undermine roe v. wade. nevada representative talks about the biden administration agenda and today's vote in the house to establish a commission

to investigate the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. later, indiana representative shares his thoughts on the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic and other news of the day. ♪ host: good morning, it's " washington journal," may 19. house representatives are set to vote today on legislation that if passed into law would create a bipartisan commission to investigate the cause of events. the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol, mccarthy has spoken out against its creation. democrats say that the body would look too -- work to look at what happened on that day and take steps to ensure the protection of the capital. tell us what you think about the possible creation of this commission and if you support or oppose them. if you support its creation,

(202) 748-8000. the number to call if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001. also, text us at (202) 748-8003. between us, @cspanwj. our facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. this would be formed in a commission styled after the september 11 attacks. the summary says that it would investigate the facts and circumstances and influencing factors of the january 6 attack. comprised of five commissioners in a chair. five commissioners in a vice chair appointed by republicans. it would have subpoena authority and as part of its work, a final report would be due september 31 of this year.

this already garnered a lot of reaction on capitol hill, particularly from comments made yesterday. kevin mccarthy, republican or california said this about the formation of the commission, "while the speaker has wasted time playing political games, numerous interagency efforts have picked up the slack host:. also, comments made on the house

floor yesterday and around capitol hill, one of the people commenting, chair jeffries commenting on the commission and how it's different from the other commissions and bodies investigating january 6. [video clip] >> the honorary review was convened appropriately by the speaker in the immediate aftermath of the insurrection to ascertain the on the ground security conditions and gaps that existed and making a series of recommendations with respect to securing the complex, in terms of the committee reviews, which i expect to continue, those are all limited of course to the various jurisdictions of the particular committees. the intel committee presumably will look at any intelligence failures. the judiciary committee can take a look at the role of the fbi in a going forward basis and the prosecution of the

insurrectionists. the homeland committee will presumably take a look at the rise of domestic terrorism and its various manifestations, including toxic white supremacy. but those committee reviews are of course limited to the areas of jurisdiction. a bipartisan commission will take a holistic look at the events of january 6, what led to it, and how do we prevent a violent insurrection and attack on the capital from ever happening again. in the aftermath of the december 7 1941 attack on pearl harbor, america had a bipartisan review in commission. in the aftermath of the september 11 attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon, america had a

bipartisan commission. in the aftermath of the january 6 violent insurrection and attack on the citadel of our democracy, it seems reasonable that america should have a bipartisan commission. host: again, that comment taking place on capitol hill yesterday. we will show you others as well, when it comes to you in the audience, when it comes to support or opposition of the new commission, an independent body to investigate the january 6 attack. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . from facebook, catherine says "support, merely political. since 1992 congress has been in a state of war due to the inconsiderate opposition to others with a measure of

objectivity brought to the question of what happened on january 6 and why. stan pierce saying that he opposes forming a commission that prosecutes many of the participants with property destroying democrats in the riots. facebook, you can reach out to us there as well. and texting. susan starts us off this morning and supports the formation of the commission. susan, thanks for calling. tell us why. caller: good morning. i supported and anyone who does not, it's because they have something to hide. kevin mccarthy has something to hide. this was a devastation to our country. the people that enabled it should be brought down and brought to justice. host: so, when you say that everybody has something to hide, what do you mean by that? caller: well he was in cahoots

with the former president. he had something to hide. there were people in our government who enabled these insurrectionists to come in. they were enabled. he has something to hide. they wanted to steal the election and this is how they went about it. this is worse, this is worse than 9/11. those were foreigners that attacked the country. these people were our own citizens. host: ben, state college, pennsylvania, go ahead and tell us why you oppose the effort. caller: good morning. i want to start off by saying that i believe every representative and senator should be safe in the capital regardless of if they are republican or democrat. i just don't understand the comparisons to pearl harbor or september 11. i'm not discounting the fact

that people did pass away on january 6, but i don't think the comparisons are fair. number two, they want to have a commission to establish security guidelines and fill the gaps in security, there's already barbed wire fence around the capital. having soldiers in the nation's capital. host: they have been largely reduced to date but as far as the independent cap nature of the commission, why not have someone outside congress take a look at it. caller: i believe they should. people in congress, the house of representatives, it wasn't a small thing that happened on january 6, but like i said in the beginning i don't think it's fair to compare it to something as tragic as pearl harbor or 9/11. host: george, you are next.

caller: i don't see how mitch mcconnell and these people can walk on both sides of the line within a few days. these people defecated, urinated in the capitol building, rubbed it on the walls. this was just a you know, some tourists coming along? my god, how could anybody with a sane mind call this thing just a simple thing. as far as the previous caller talking about pearl harbor, pearl harbor has nothing to do with it. host: so exactly why do you support the formation of this commission? caller: sir? host: why do you support the formation of the commission? caller: because, we need to get to the bottom of everything that happened. we know that there is plenty there. host: another supporter, this is

ken in illinois. hello. ken, illinois, hello. one more time for ken in illinois. caller: yes, go ahead. good morning, pedro, good morning, c-span. this is purely about politics, as far as the republican side doesn't want to be caught having a honest probe into why, and this is important, the president of the united states and the minority leader kevin mccarthy were conversing and what the nature of the conversation was and that mr. mccarthy was opposed to what was going on and

saw that president trump was encouraging this insurrection and doesn't want to have an honest accounting of that. host: if democrats are already investigating these things on many fronts as they control both houses, why the need for an independent body? caller: that just gives it more stature, more reliability as far as accountability and honesty that the people of the united states can look and see about what is going on. host: someone who opposes the effort, this is steve in kentucky. hello. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: yes, i would say just leave this man alone. i mean he had the best economy going, everything. that was a great economy.

seems like there's someone in the background always leading around mr. biden. i don't have anything against -- host: what does this have to do with the commission being voted on today? caller: well, i would say that i don't think mr. trump had that much to do with it. i know he made a statement about it and later on he made a statement about people not, you know, doing it. so i don't, i think he was the best thing we ever had on the economy. host: that's steve they're in kentucky. this vote will take place in the house of representatives today and we invite you to follow along as you watch our main channel, c-span. you can also follow along on our radio app if you want to download and listen to the proceedings of congress, particularly on the house side, as they take up this legislation. one of the people speaking out, yesterday, as you heard,

marjorie taylor greene, talking about her opposition. [video clip] >> mystery speaker,, ah rise in opposition to these commission and spending $2 billion in security. the question that comes to mind is this. what about all the riots that happened during the summer of 2020 after the death of george floyd. what about all the damage caused to federal buildings, churches, people's businesses, and the innocent people that were killed like david dorn. this past summer, minneapolis city officials estimate 700 buildings were damaged, burned, or destroyed, including 360 local businesses. riots caused an estimated 300 and $55 billion in damages. blm, nt for establishing autonomous zones and attempting to burn government buildings in portland. is that not insurrection? host: you heard the

representative talk about the supplemental spending bill. to give you a breakdown of what it contained, $500 million would include reimbursement to the national guard and $350 million for fencing, $160 billion for windows and were heartening, as it is known, and to protect judges and courts, $40 million to protect prosecutors. front page of "the washington times," the national guard presence there in washington, d.c., thousands of national guard troops were stationed at a rotating basis at the capital and will head home this weekend as they can -- weigh whether to create a permanent unit, with a mooted demilitarized the capital receiving cheers from downtown businesses and officials. this as postelection riots in the risk of covid-19 received. one restaurant owner said that it definitely did impact the business in the area.

that's the front page of "the washington times," if you want to read about that. your calls, on the support of this independent commission styled after the 9/11 commission, as you heard legislators say. massachusetts, robert, hello. caller: i supported very much so. but i know nothing is going to happen. nothing. if they had that commission, that would mean bill barr had to testify, mitch mcconnell would have to testify. mccarthy would have to testify. these people, if they testified in the commission, they would all be caught in a lie. right? look at things down there in washington, steve scalise is always in the background behind

mccarthy. look at the smirk on his face. he got shot at that ballgame. you would think he would have learned a lesson. republicans, i know you are not racist. i'm not going to call you all racist, but i will call you all prejudice. every time you talk about black lives matter, and you respect a crime family? donald trump's children. look at really -- look at rudy giuliani. host: opposition to the effort from tennessee, hello. caller: first of all, you let that man just sit there and say that skill lease should have learned his lesson after being shot? i cannot believe that such a statement was made. host: you are still on, go ahead. caller: i agree with marjorie

taylor greene 100%. i believe the black lives matter riots and the nt for riots go hand-in-hand with the attack on the capital. after watching these attacks from blm and nt for for over a year, the capital being attacked, our president being forced into a bunker at the white house from blm and nothing done with that, i believe that there must be an investigation into black lives matter. i believe the people at the capital felt they had free reign that nothing would happen because it is standard now in this country to be able to burn businesses to the ground, attack our monument. host: the vote on the commission, you oppose this effort specifically why? caller: because of black lives matter and nt for, which had

insurrections on capitol building's on capitol grounds and at the white house are not being investigated the same way. they are one in one. host: that's teresa darren tennessee talking about other issues concerning today's commission, relating it to other events taking place across the nation. when it comes to the subpoena powers, if you go to the law fair blog it talks about the bill that will be voted on today and specifically talks about the powers of subpoena that will be granted to the members of the commission if it's formed, saying that the requirements for subpoena track those on the 9/11 commission and allows for subpoenas to issue on the agreement of the chair or vice chair or the majority vote of the commissioners and some commentators have pointed out that this could potentially give republican members the ability to block any subpoena if they vote together and it means that only one of -- one republican

appointed commissioner will be required to make the commission go through the commendable feature from the bill that is not compromised on the premise that it represented something ugly and dangerous that requires investigation and there is no false equivalence here with violence at other protest. bill is a long section declaring the purpose of the body, which is to investigate and report on the facts and causes relating to the domestic terror attacks on the u.s. capitol hereafter referred to as domestic terror attacks on the capital, relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer look power and facts and causes related to u.s. capitol police and other federal state and local law enforcement in the capital region and other instrumentality of government and the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on representative democracy engaged in a constitutional process. there's a lot more there on ball fair as far as the details of what this commission would offer

as far as powers and other things if you want to read it there. mike, ohio, supports the effort. caller: i do support it and i don't think it's right for democrats to compare this to 9/11 or pearl harbor. nor should the gop compare this to black lives matter. you know what you compare it to? benghazi, benghazi, benghazi. host: why do you support the commission specifically? caller: according to kevin mccarthy, when ghazi was done by hillary clinton, a less popular candidate for oval office. if you can have hearings on benghazi, which by the way, they, with all due respect, was a war zone. had we flown planes over and ghazi? maybe if those lives could have been saved, we don't know, but we do know that if president

trump hadn't been at the capital, that would have been easier to prevent them benghazi was. host: let's hear from ben in baltimore city, maryland. caller: i just don't see how anyone could oppose this. the reason i supported is there's just a lot of questions that need to be answered and i think it needs to be done under subpoena power. the sad part of all of this is that i think bipartisanship and a middle ground is a dinosaur right now. host: what do you think, what do you think this commission will accomplish if it goes forward? caller: some answers to some questions that linger out there about this being something that was preplanned or impromptu for

a combination of both. someone behind the scenes, players, if in fact there are any. those are the kinds of questions i would hope that the commission would be able to get to the bottom of. host: politico reporting that while house gop leadership is not formal, top republicans are starting to grow nervous about how many members may wind up crossing party lines, a blow to mccarthy and it could enrage total trump. a bipartisan vote in the house could put more pressure on the senate republicans to get behind the proposal as one gop lawmaker put it, the genie is out of the bottle and people are trying to put it back in. going to the senate side, the hill.com this morning, they have a perspective on what's going on with senators in this legislation saying that republicans are split over the commission of its ability to

survive a filibuster, describing the chances of the bill as uncertain in the wake of the mccarthy opposition to the legislation negotiated by the top republicans on homeland security commission. going on to say it sounds like the wheels have come off. what does the vote look like? are republicans supportive of it? it's a weight the posture from senate republicans watching house counterparts. again, that's at the hill. when it comes to the speaker of the house, particularly the mccarthy statements on it, she had this to say. you can find the comments at speaker.gov, saying that the commission is modeled after the 9/11 commission to get to the truth of what happens on january 6 and democrats may seek a bipartisan compromise but leader mccarthy won't take yes for an answer

host: again, this is the day that the house side will take a vote on this commission. it's expected to pass and we are asking you if you support or oppose the effort. you can call us on the lines and texas -- text us if you want. courtney, pompano beach, florida, opposing the commission. go ahead. caller: high. -- hi. i'm not understanding incitement. look at maxine waters. a peaceful protest, trump said go peacefully, not terrorist, no weapons. these are pissed off american seeing that democracy and constitution taken away. they cheated in the election. you all know it. host: so what about the independent commission do you oppose? caller: it's a witchhunt like

russian collusion and the impeachment. host: why do you categorize it as a witchhunt? caller: because he did not do anything wrong to incite this. it's ridiculous. you guys are wasting our money and taking away all our rights as people to go against our government and peacefully protest. you want to tell me peaceful protest didn't happen in the summer of love? host: do you describe what happened on january 6 as peaceful? caller: i don't condone any kind of violence, destruction of property, or hurting anybody. the only person that got hurt was a woman who got shot in self-defense. host: do you describe it as peaceful overall? caller: peaceful? what did they do? where were the weapons? is this like 9/11 like a terrorist attack? there were no weapons. they were not instructed to go. trump did not set up an organization to go in there.

these people aree pissed off. they want what's fair, fair election. host: you made that point. chris, good morning. caller: hello, good morning. host: good morning, you are on. caller: well, i think everybody should just show the facts of what really happened, you know. a lot of us are sitting here watching on television, looking at president trump. he said he was going to go with them and he never did. we know what we are watching here and what's happening here, everybody does. it's simple to see that -- host: when republicans make the point that it's being investigated, why the need for another commission, do you think? caller: well, i would think it would be a commission

on an independent commission would be the best because apparently congress can't come together on it. host: chris in indiana, giving his thoughts on the vote taking place today. one of you calling this morning to support or oppose it on capitol hill. a lot of reaction taking place leading up to the vote. d.c., a tweet today, benny thompson, cosponsor of the legislation says he thinks that the gop minority leader has information that would damage republicans and that kevin mccarthy will do anything to stop it from getting out. let's hear from keith. keith is in madison, wisconsin, supports the effort. hello. caller: hello. yes, the people trying to draw the false comparison between black lives matter and antifa, they should put to rest. it's not doing their cause any

good. it's pretty stupid to be making that comparison. host: why do you call it a false comparison? caller: why? people who break things and smash stuff up are responding to terror and they are justified in smashing stuff up. the way to fix that is to simply reform the police so they don't have the ability to kill black people with immunity and impunity. host:4 as -- host: as far as today's commission, why do you support it? caller: we want to find out what collaboration was going on between these capitalist police and fascist white nationalist writers. why were there not more white nationalist corpses piling up -- host: excuse me, we will leave it there. let's go to ben in crystal river, florida, who opposes the effort. caller: it is so scary to listen

to these people talk. and it's so ridiculous to keep bringing trump up. trump is long gone. the issue on this is we have never seen a nonbiased commission ever. there is no such thing in our government. host: given the 9/11 commission itself this is being patterned after? caller: please don't make a comparison to the two. that was an extra in a force attack. host: the commission is a comparison to what's being proposed today as far as legislation, that's why i bring it up. caller: let me make my point. we've got the government forces us to look backwards because it's easy. we can dredge up any number that exists. is this the first riot? my point is we need to be

looking forward and making decisions for what's going to be happening tomorrow. instead of constantly looking back. host: democrats would say that in looking back to january 6 it helps them look forward. right? caller: they have got barbed wire up in washington, d.c.. nothing happened to anybody except the one protester that got killed. host: let's hear from the rules committee chairman yesterday, who talked about the statements made about the commission. here's some of what he had to say concerning the lead up to today's vote. [video clip] >> what's frustrating is this doesn't seem to be a disagreement over substance or policy. but i do think it is an issue of character and of fitness to

lead. i really do. you know, as somebody who was here on january 6, the last person off the house floor, walking into the speakers gallery and seeing them smashing the windows and doors, seeing the hate in their eyes, seeing people walking around, that video afterwards, walking around the capital with confederate flags and with anti-semitic t-shirts, fast-forward to today where we have some members of congress who are basically saying that what happened, what we all experienced, what we saw didn't really happen. i mean enough. i assume that trump got wind that we were doing this and call

the minority leader and set i don't like it we got this opposition. i will tell you that if anyone in this chamber doesn't believe it's important to get to the truth about what happened on the sixth or who wants to make believe that what happened didn't happen, that it was a typical day on the capitol, they are not fit to serve in the chamber. host: the house will take at the legislation today. the hill will comment -- the hill has comments on the chuck schumer comments, vowing that they will take up the legislation in the senate. setting up a commission, going on to say that it shows how difficult it is to negotiate with republicans as they throw lead negotiators under the bus. which he said of the mccarthy

opposition, they hope to set up a 10 member commission with a final report due by the last day of this year. you can comment whether you support or oppose the commission , the independent commission styled after the 9/11 commission. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . edward, michigan, go ahead. caller: real quick, i watched insurrection at the capital and i did the weapons those people. they had baseball bats. they had bear spray. they had polls. i don't understand how people can say that there were no weapons at the capital.

nor that their intentions were friendly. as for supporting the committee, i think it's very important that we do that. i'm almost 55 years old. i have been through, i remember, 12 administrations. i don't understand, number one, i thought we had a vetting system before people could be even promoted to such a position as president. but obviously we don't. but my issue is i do support the commission because i think people have forgotten that we were given this wonderful gift, the gift called democracy and that is something that i think that we have fallen asleep at the wheel with. people aren't devoting. i mean, if you look at the number of citizens we have as compared to the number of people who are voting in the local elections and state elections, everybody votes usually for the

presidential election but what happens is things fail in between those elections. and i guess we are in the positions we are in right now because people just aren't reacting and talking to the people that represent them. host: tom, fort lauderdale, opposing the effort caller:. good morning. caller:good morning. if the congress wants to know what caused this action on the capital, i could tell them. it was suppression of the voices of the people who were there up to that time. these people never had a voice in the general media about their objections to the selection. they never were able to present before the public the proof that they had that this election was false.

now i'm not, i'm not saying one way or the other about this election. but there are specific questions about the selection that need voice, need investigation. and if all that happens, this country can move forward. host: you are calling on the line for opposing an independent commission to look at this. why is that? caller: because it's obvious to me why this happened. it was suppression. a voice from the people who believed that the election was false. host: you said that needed to be looked at but you are opposing an independent commission. why is that? caller: i'm not opposing an independent commission to invest it election. host: you are calling on the oppose line. caller: right, i'm calling on the one investigating what they called insurrection. if these were domestic

terrorists, they are the worst domestic terrorist the world has ever known. [laughter] host: port charlotte, support line. martha. caller: hello. i support it, too many things have happened. i had a nephew and i called my senators, i called mccarthy and all of them. he was at that and he was telling the family that he was ready and waiting for trump and he got the message. i have called so many senators on the republican side, too. if they don't let this investigation go through, this is like trump saying it was a false election. host: why an independent commission if bodies in the federal government are already looking at it? caller: you know, i don't care, whoever, i just wanted looked at, ok?

it did happen and he was there. the flags and everything like that. he was telling the family, i haven't turned them into the fbi. our democracy means so much to us and it just seems like people don't care about it anymore. host: ok. that's martha there in port charlotte, florida. this is from the twitter feed. absolutely support, violent insurrection at the capital, 100 and 40 officers, hundreds arrested, get to the bottom of it. pam, burlington, saying people need to stop saying no one got hurt, a woman got shot. five police -- five people died. saying that this has been twisted into another lie by republicans, if they don't want the truth, ask yourself why. steven and fort pierce saying that he opposes it because in

insurrection is an attempt to take over an existing government and those in the protest wanted to restore faith in the government in contrast to the days of they are a cades and national guards, which is an organized insurrection. texting us is one way you can reach out. you can post on the twitter feed if you want. our facebook pages available, too. you can continue to do so. derek in chicago, illinois on the support line, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. these people are insane, like sheep that can be led to slaughter. we know what they are saying. those insurrectionists, they got in the capital congress had been moved out or barricaded in, they would have heard the republicans as well as the democrats. that's just point-blank, they

went in shouting let's hang mike pence, hang pentz, hang pentz. these people are just taking talking points from the congresspeople. i've never seen nothing like this in my life. host: why do you support an independent commission for this? caller: because this was going on months before. matter of fact, trump said that if he don't win the election, it's rig. he said that months before the election even started. host: what does the independent commission accomplish? caller: i think they would get together and i don't know exactly where in the path they will start this, but they will pick it up from there and just collect the information from there to january the sixth and perhaps beyond, but we need to get to the bottom of this because they tried to destroy

the democracy of this country that they say they love so much. host: that's derek in illinois. l'affaire posted a piece taking a look at the legislation and the commissioners that could be a part of the effort, saying that when it comes to a challenge relating to the commission, their areas of expertise, individuals should be prominent u.s. citizens with national recognition and significant depth of experience in at least two of the following areas, government service, law-enforcement, civil rights, civil liberties, privacy, intelligence, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, accountability and law. absent from the list is expertise in congress and understanding the particular structure of the capitol police as the entity that makes many of the day to day decisions of the security operations of the capital prior to getting a complete actor of what happened

operationally on january 6 to create the conditions that contributed to the security failures, adding early speculation on members of the commissioning former members of congress. former legislators could have important experience, but they could be reluctant to lay blame at the feet of their former colleagues or successors for whatever missteps congress made to contribute to the operational failures of january 6, vital to make sure that they have experts in the area. we will go ahead and hear from earl, indiana, who opposes the effort. earl, go ahead. caller: the way i look at it, trump never had a chance in the beginning. they said that his election was false and stuff and look at all the trouble he went through. you want to blaine trump, let's

blame the people, blame the people who went there. host: if that's the case, why do you oppose the commission? caller: because we have had enough of it. we need people to stand up and run the government and look at all of what happened in the past , let's get the government straightened out. biden does not need to be president. it was fixed and we know it. host: larry, olympia, support line, hello. caller: i support the commission because there needs to be an understanding of what exactly transpired on that day and led to the day. you hear some people supporting trump blaming democrats and people that support democrats from the beginning of his administration when in fact hillary clinton conceded very

soon after the election was over and was called, even though it was very close, she did concede. nancy pelosi and democrats stepped up behind trump and said we have to help him learn the job and do the job. see how he does. host: when it comes to the commission itself and your support of it, do you think that this will provide a definitive answer? caller: i hope it does. from what i have seen in the years following trump and what happened leading up to the insurrection, i would think it was actually a concerted attempt to destroy democracy in the united states and bring about an autocratic society, in which case the second amendment and the right to bear arms would be totally taken away, as was done in russia by them. -- putin.

host: on the oppose line, missouri, go ahead. caller: yeah, i'm against it because we have had, they have had meeting after meeting with the witnesses since this happened. you know, everything has been brought out about it. besides that, it doesn't matter if we have this commission or not, or the investigation. because the democrats are going to believe what they want to believe, republicans are going to stand their ground, believe what they want to believe. it's really not going to do any good, it's not going to bring out anything that hasn't already been brought out. it's a waste of money. just like with the russia probe and all the ones we have had. host: this is taken out of the hands of congress by an independent commission, do you think that might lead to a report or narrative that may

have some people changing their minds are looking at it differently? caller: no, you got democrats and republicans in congress or not, they have still got their own views. it's not going to change anything. like with the russia probe and all these kinds of things, it doesn't matter. the impeachment, if trump was found whatever they call it, not innocent, but you know. they still have their own belief and it's still daily, daily, daily. he's guilty of this, guilty of that. but i just don't think it's going to do any good. host: ok. we will hear from eli, next on the support line. hello, you are on. caller: high, i support this. the reason why is this is going to give us more clarity on

what's really going on behind the scenes. everybody involved in the insurrection, everyone that went through that barricade and cross that line are agents of trump. so what we are looking for are the generals, the captains. who are really involved. everybody opposing this on the republican side, they all have something to be very afraid of. what's to come if this goes through. the january 6 commission will bring to light all those things. host: what convinces you that the commission itself will bring more clarity? what about the body do caller: caller: you think will do that? because it will be relentless. they are going to find out the truth and give the operation the ability to look into things that they are probably not able to. phone records. emails. a lot of those things that a lot of people are trying to hide right now currently. the same thing happened with rudy giuliani and what they are finding out right now. it's all based on that. there is a lot of characters

involved in secrecy right now and this is what's going to happen when it goes through, that will come to light. host: ok. that's eli in texas supporting the commission. that vote is today in the house of representatives and if you want to see the vote happen and people making comments about it, particularly your representatives making comments about it, stay close to c-span. our main channel, one of the people on the radio app talking about the work of the legislation for this commission and opposing the effort is the rules committee ranking member, talking about why he opposes such a move. [video clip] >> first and foremost, i'm concerned about the scope. these events didn't emerge in a vacuum. it was part of a broader wave of violence over the past several years that has worsened since the covid-19 pandemic began.

given that these events are linked, it makes sense to grant the commission the capability to look more broadly at political violence in the country, including the widespread violence of last summer in previous attempts to attack members of the body. the 9/11 commission was after all able to look not only at the september 11 attacks and the broader context in which the attacks arose and it seems that this commission should be able to do the same. second, this time there were several investigation into the events of january 6 that are already underway. multiple committees in the house in the senate held hearings and will continue to hold hearings throughout the year. according to "the washington post," 400 and 40 suspects have been charged in connection with the attack and all of those charged will pay legal proceedings that last for some time. given the ongoing investigation and the fact that there may well be 100 more investigations

underway, i'm concerned that having another investigation with a commission such as this at this time will only muddied the waters and d process harder to reach. host: when it comes to the dynamics of a final vote count, the hill has a piece from the bipartisan problem solvers caucus made up of equal numbers of republicans and democrats, coming out in the support of the formation of this commission, saying the support from the 58 member bodies per -- split evenly between democrats and republicans comes out as republican leaders come out against the plans and they did not explain the reasoning behind their endorsement in their press release announcing support said that the legislation had garnered the support of 75% of their members and that the statement ensures that the legislation will get some republican support in the house as the bill divides the republican party on the house

side. again, one of the things to watch out for on capitol hill as the vote plays out. we will hear from dan, dan in massachusetts on the oppose line. hello. caller: thank you for having me on. i want to point out one thing that the media has been saying over and over that doesn't enough with the timing of things, which is the moment that the capital was breached, the media keeps saying that the capital was breached because people were trying to disrupt the certification of joe biden becoming president, correct? host: go ahead. caller: ok. well, the certification started and what they do is they start in alphabetical order with the states and when they got to the state of arizona, two senators stood up and said there were

problems with the election in arizona. at that moment, the certification of joe biden for president stopped. and next on the docket in both the house and the senate work hours and hours of conversations about what happened in arizona. host: how does that connect to the commission vote today? caller: hello? host: how does that connect to the commission vote today? caller: waters have been muddied. look host: host: -- what do you mean by that? caller: ok. the certification for joe biden was happening. host: you said that already. but we are talking about the commission vote today and your opposition to it. what specifically are you opposing? caller: do you think a government can set up an

investigation similar to 9/11, is that going to give us the facts? host: why do you think it won't? caller: because it's the government, they are there to protect themselves. even the members of the 9/11 commission said they were given tainted evidence, all kinds of things are wrong. i'm pointing out the simple fact of how we are all being misled to. that this so-called insurrection was to stop the certification of joe biden. host: you have made that point twice already. we will go on to the next caller in sacramento, california on the support line. rhonda, good morning. caller: high, good morning. i am for the commission. i am hoping that what will come out of it are things such as some of the of doors or hallways and that such.

i'm interested in knowing how it was many of them were able to get entrance into, into the building knowing this. that says to me then that someone on the inside, whether it was capitol police or, i would hate to know if it was one of our representatives somehow who was working with some of these insurrectionists. host: what convinces you of that? caller: because of the nancy pelosi scene that i saw, when they tore apart her offices. i believe it was on abc news, they stated that they found one of the suspects, one of the ones detained was carrying a map of

what the offices were that were there inside. i'm thinking to myself, how do they know this? unless someone works there or unless someone is a part of the -- host: and do you think a commission will parse out that information as you are suspect of or curious about? caller: i am, i'm hoping that those are some of the answers i would like to know and that we would learn. i believe that, because so many people were hurt, people have died. and i know that they are still looking for answers. those police officers that were injured, the young lady that was killed. i think we need answers. host: let's hear from virginia, they oppose the effort. caller: i oppose it because there was no insurrection.

people were outraged. they had four years of their president being persecuted by the democrats. and he was a wonderful president. he kept things running like a top, it was amazing what he accomplished. host: so why not have an independent body? caller: they were outraged over the election because they knew it was corrupt. host: why not have an independent body look at the event itself as far as what led to it? caller: well what about the body that led to it? trump? he didn't encourage that. he didn't encourage that. host: let's go to marvin in california. fresno, hello. caller: i definitely support it. it's nauseating but downplay it. this is about title meant.

they lost an election. they didn't have a problem with benghazi, but they have a problem with this? host: why do you support this effort? caller: sunlight is the best disinfectant. we have to know what's going on. kevin mccarthy, lindsey graham, mitch mcconnell on january 6 said the truth. now they are capitulating? making the republicans look bad as they think about power, the truth getting out will hurt their chances. people leave -- people opposing it, that tells you everything you need to know about them. by opposing it they are trying to protect trump. host: california, escondido, opposing the effort. john. caller: i oppose it because it's

rigged and one-sided and not bipartisan. the democrats have control of all three houses and also the supreme court. host: if this is an independent commission with five commissioners on each side, how is it rigged? caller: because the democrats are in charge. it doesn't matter if it's five republicans. which five republicans? host: five commissioners chosen by republicans, five commissioners chosen by democrats. caller: right, well -- host: the chair and vice chair. caller: the problem is people listen to the hate channels. cnn, msnbc, all they do is spew hate and lies all day long every snow day. we watched the burning of buildings, the rapes and murders on the west coast, in oregon, the antifa supported by george

soros. he financed all this. host: for all those things that you described, what does that mean for this investigation of january 6? why do you oppose it specifically? caller: they ignore george soros financing all of this and it's so corrupt. everything that they do to try to look at this. you know, we need to move on. donald trump never did anything wrong and to hear these people talk about him during the in spirit -- insurrection, it never happened. host: jesse, florida, last call on this segment. go ahead. caller: i am a trump supporter and i saw what happened at the capital. convinced that those were criminal actions. the people that invaded the capitol, and by the person who

incited that, mr. trump. the reason i support this commission is i think that there is still unanswered questions associated with this. and one of the major questions i have is, ok, all these senators and representatives that are now changing their mind, what is the reason for that? was there any complacency in the actual, in encouraging it itself from people in congress? host: whitley do to draw those conclusions or make those comparisons -- what leads you to draw those conclusions or make those comparisons? caller: i'm concerned that before the insurrection there were conversations, and how involved are those congressmen were. host: jesse in florida calling.

the house of representatives will take this about. follow -- this vote. follow along on c-span and on the c-span radio app. first up, looking at the supreme court as they take on this case concerning mississippi's abortion law, plus other issues concerning the court. joining us is kimberly robinson. and later, we will talk about the vote on the commission and of the president' economic agendas with edina titus of nevada. those conversations, plus more, coming up on "washington journal." ♪ ♪ announcer: in history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend. saturday at 2:00 p.m., a discussion about ruth bader ginsburg and the supreme court

case that challenged the male only admission policy averaging young military institute. the university of delaware professor allison parker details activist's mary church carol's fight against the united daughters of the confederacy's attempt to erect a black mammy statute. she talks about how it was prevented from being built. and on american artifacts, explore the sean memorial dedicated to colonel robert gould shaw and the 54th massachusetts, one of the war's first african-american units. and on sunday, a look at the george hwb presidential library and museum and how the complex is entered a new phase since the death of the president and his wife barbara. explore the american story, watch american history tv, this weekend on c-span3.

announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: our first guest is kimberly robinson, who will be talking about recent events at the supreme court and court overall. good morning. guest: good morning. host: what was the significance of the supreme court taking on the abortion law in mississippi? guest: the supreme court has in the past it really shied away from these big abortion decisions, really preferring to hear the issue in a more tangential way. we have seen first amendment cases related to abortion, but this case really takes on the issue head on, and it so that is something is notable, considering that we have a new composition in the court. and i think that is pretty much at same divisions of the court

taking the case. host: when you say it is taking on the issue head on, can you elaborate? guest: a lot of the abortion cases that the roberts court has heard deal with issues that could limit the right to abortion, but do not directly threaten the right or take on roe v. wade and planned parenthood in a direct way, but this case does. that's because we are dealing with a complete ban on abortion after 15 weeks, something that goes to the heart of what roe v. wade and planned parenthood is all about. host: is there a sense of why the court took this up now? guest: we do not know. the supreme court is a secretive institution, something unique in washington, but when we look at the court one thing that has changed is the composition.

it takes four justices to vote to agree to take on a case, so the common thinking among the court watchers is now the court has a very solid 6-3 majority and there were four justices who decided to take this case on. host: when it comes to the 6-3, top particularly among the newest members of the court, those put in during the trump administration. how have they stood on these issues? guest: we do not really know. that is because, when i talked about the fact the supreme court has not really taken on abortion cases head on, but also because there was not a lot of abortion cases that happened to hit in the courts that the trump nominees were in, so we have not really seen what justice amy coney barrett thinks about abortion while being a sitting

judge. and i think that really the nominee to watch here among the newest justices is probably justice brett kavanaugh. host: why is that? guest: we have seen him emerge as the median justice. that's not to say his politics are in the middle, but just among the supreme court and in the conservative majority, he'd tends to be the justice and the majority of the most often. he has only been on the court for a few terms, so this could change as his career goes on, but we have seen really where he goes the court tends to go, although i would temper it with the fact that chief justice roberts will be a factor as well. host: we will continue talking with kimberly robinson. if you want to ask her questions about this case or issues of the

supreme court, call us at 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002 for independents. justice amy coney barrett, the latest justice. we will take you back to her confirmation hearing when she was asked then about her position on these kinds of issues compared to former justice anthony scalia. [video clip] >> i think my answer is the same because that is a case that if litigated its contours could come up again. they came up last term before the court. so i think what the standard is and that's just a contentious issue, which i know one reason why it would be comforting to you to have an answer, but i cannot express views on cases or pre-commit to approaching a case

any particular way. >> that makes it difficult for me. and i think for other women, also, because this is a very important case. and it affects a lot of people, millions and millions of women. and you could be a very important vote. and i had hoped you would say as a person -- you have a lovely family, you understand all the implications of family life. you should be very proud of that. i'm proud of you for that. but my position is a little different. you are going on the biggest court in this land with a problem out there that all women see, one way or another, in their life. not all, but certainly married women do, and others too. so the question comes, what happens? and will this justice support a

law that has substantial precedent now? would you commit yourself on whether you would or would not? >> what i will commit is i will obey all the rules that is a question comes up before me about whether any case should be overruled, that i will apply the law as the court has articulated it, applying all the factors like reliance, workability, being undermined by law -- all the standard factors. i promise to do that for any issue, abortion or anything else, i will follow the law. host: that exchange from a question about whether roe v. wade should be overturned, but from what she said what can you gleam from that, particularly now that she sits on the court? guest: we see that as a common

answer among nominees, not just from the trump nominees, but across the spectrum, a real hesitance to answer these kinds of questions in the modern era. but there is the possibility that the supreme court does not write the words roe v. wade, is overturned, but they kind of instead tweak the standard that courts will use in order to analyze whether state restrictions on abortion are ok. that will have a pretty big impact, even if roe v. wade stays good law in name only. host: we talked about justice kavanaugh comeau but what about -- justice brett kavanaugh, but what about justice neil gorsuch? guest: there was a case recently dealing with abortion with

restrictions of louisiana and i think that we can gleam he's a to at least limit the right to abortion, but of course we will have to wait and see. but we have good indications that he will be on the side, if not to overturn the laws, more likely to restrict them. host: then the chief justice himself, in a sense of where he stands on these types of things? guest: we do know that chief justice roberts probably -- i spoke to somebody the other day who said, he probably does want to overturn roe v. wade, but he is known as an institutionalist, somebody who really cares about the supreme court and reputation of the supreme court, and so court watchers tend to think that in the back of his mind he is really thinking, what does it look like, is the supreme court with this new majority were to overturn 50 years of

precedent, and that the chief justice will do all he can to make sure that the supreme court does not explicitly overrule these cases. but then again, as i said before, that does not mean they cannot still vote to limit these cases. host: our first call for kimberly robinson is from billy in brooklyn, new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. so the thing about conservatives if they want to reduce the number of abortions. why not make contraception more accessible? why make it legal for those two reviews contraception -- to refuse contraception? if you want to reduce abortions, why not make contraception more available? you know, these conservatives come back with a rationale about how the morning-after pill, all

these things are like abortion, but it is not based on science, it's a distorted perspective and has no bearing of science whatsoever. also, if a person is constituted by two cells, wouldn't even taking the morning-after pill be murder? these positions are incoherent. guest: yeah, this is an issue that the supreme court has heard before, and recently in cases involving a group of catholic nuns. the supreme court has said that employers, religious employers with objections to these contraceptive laws do not have to provide them to employees, and really kind of bend over backwards to make it so they do not even have to tell the government that they object to these things. so the supreme court is not allowing really more

contraceptives as it limits abortion. that's something that is not happening. host: reviewer rights, -- a viewer rights, remember obama opposed this, but new justices narrowly voted in favor. composition of the court has always influenced decisions. guest: that is something that the supreme court tries to fight. we've seen justice breyer really trying to convince americans that the composition does not matter, that these are just judges who are looking at the law, trying to figure out the right questions. but i think that we have seen polls showing more and more than americans think politics matter on the supreme court. host: from ohio, fye on the line for independence. -- for independents. caller: these six republicans

defined themselves as pro-life when they are actually pro-execution, pro-war and pro-hunting. i know that neil gorsuch enjoys killing mourning doves in his recreation time. because of these six republicans, the u.s. is one of 20 countries out of 195 still murdering prisoners in the world. i think the entire world is guilty of contempt for this court. guest: you know, we have seen a lot of movement in the current court on the death penalty and on eighth amendment cases in general. that is how these cases come up. and you are right that the conservative court kind of has -- the question with the composition of the court now with the 6-3 majority is allowing more executions to go forward. another point, you mentioned guns. not only has the supreme court

agreed to take this abortion case, but it also agreed to take a really big second amendment case. so these are two big issues that could shape politics in american lives. and ths will be coming out -- this will be coming out right before the midterm election. host: talking about guns and abortion, about the court entering a so-called culture war, is this something that you sense? is this unique for this court in terms of taking on those issues? guest: it seems like the roberts court has gone out of its way to try to stay out of contentious issues. now ko's -- now it has not always been successful. there are some issues it cannot shy away from. if there is a split in a lower court, the supreme court will have to take up that issue. or if we see lower courts striking down different statutes or federal laws, that is

something this up will weigh in on. but where they can stay out of contentious issues, we have seen them do that, but that seems to be changing again with this conservative majority. and it all comes down to the number of votes the justices need in order to take up cases. there are nine members on the court, it takes a majority in order to rule a particular way, but it only takes four in order to hear a case. that's an interesting dynamic. to have four on the court, we do not know who they are -- but it seems like we have four who are ready to take on the big issues. host: do we definitively know that there are six republicans on the court? guest: i think we can say that they are people who were nominated by republican judges. you know, we do not really know

their political affiliation, except for where they say in their confirmation hearings. justice brett kavanaugh says he does not vote anymore. whether or not you categorize him as a republican. but we can say with a surety that these were justices appointed by republican presidents. and that is something that has tracked along with their ideology. these tend to be more conservative justices. on the flipside, those nominated by democrats tend to be more liberal. host: on the democrat line, david. caller: ideally the law will represent the will of the people. when it comes to abortion, i do not think we really know the will of the people. i'm not aware of surveys or information on why so many women have abortions. i do not know if they can even ask the women why they are

having an abortion, but nobody seems to be concerned about why this is happening, they just want to stop it for religious purposes, not for health or anything else. it is just religion. are there any surveys or facts about abortion? guest: there are. with this abortion grant, we have seen -- my inbox has been flooded with emails showing these kinds of surveys, but they are inconsistent all over the board. i think it depends on what questions you ask. there's an interesting debate on whether or not the justices should really care about what or how the public opinion is on these issues. remember, they are trying to look at the constitution and say what the constitution says. and i think many on the court think that should not depend on what the american people think about it. host: from california on the independent line, debbie.

caller: good morning. i am glad to talk about it because i really think that this needs to be revisited and -- in these times we live in, because i do not think a lot of people are clear about what an abortion involves. i think there should be a limiti in terms of how long you can have before you make a decision for an abortion, because i believe if you understood the medical side of it, there is a life being taken and it is ending with an abortion. doctors have to sever the child, they have to do a death. guest: that is exactly the thing that the supreme court is going to decide. in planned parenthood v. casey, when it comes to abortion law this is the case to look at, a case from 1992 whih really --

1992, which really did talk about the line when a woman has the right to decide whether or not she can terminate pregnancy. and when the state can have an interest, too. right now the line is a viability, a standard that kind of changes as science gets better and better. that is exactly the issue they will be tackling here, when are the limits where we can say a woman no longer has the exclusive right to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, when can the state say 15 weeks is enough and you have to have an abortion before that or you have to take the baby to full term. host: do we know who will make the arguments for this case? guest: we do not know yet. the argument is a really long term -- a really long time away. right now, the court is focused on getting out the arguments

that it heard over this last term. it will spend the next couple months trying to get out all of its opinions, and we have big ones coming. then it takes a break. it's a really good gig. we will not get to arguments until the fall. and i think probably the parties are still trying to figure out who is going to be arguing these cases. host: further pending decisions, what -- for the pending decisions, what is the top one to watch? guest: the one over obamacare. i think this is the seventh case the court has heard related to this landmark legislation from the obama administration, and this is one that could strike down the entire affordable care act. but from oral arguments, it seems like most of the conservatives are on board with that, but that is a case still pending. and we have another one on what

to do about antidiscrimination laws that protect lgbt people and the right to practice free religion. host: from jerry in new jersey, the republican line, for our guest. caller: my name is jerri. i'm a critical care registered nurse, i work in the women's division. i've seen live births. if you could just describe partial birth, when a live baby is partially born, they crush the skull, suck out the brain, and then get rid of this one live child that is no longer alive. now, do you think partial-birth abortions are acceptable when the baby is born alive, but before the head comes out they crush the head -- host: what is the exact question

you want her to address? caller: i want to address partial-birth abortions and how that is done. let h.e.r. explain how partial -- her explain how partial-birth abortions are done. host: kimberly robinson, the legal aspects of this type of procedure. guest: that is something that the supreme court has tackled before, partial-birth abortions, and they have said that while you cannot ban abortions, the states can regulate the kinds of abortions that the state can offer. so we saw the supreme court really uphold a federal law that says you can ban partial-birth abortions. it's something the supreme court has already tackled. the question here is is the complete ban on having an abortion after 15 weeks, is that like regulating the type of abortion or is that more like a

complete ban, something the constitution will not tolerate? host: a couple other issues addressed by the court is the push by justices about retiring. can you talk about the back story to this? guest: i think to get the back story to that we have to talk about justice ginsburg. we saw of course her passing in september of 2020. and a real rush by the republicans in charge tof ill her seat -- to fill her seat. it completely changed the dynamic. all the things happening today probably wouldn't have happened if not for her death, so there is a pushback from progressives to make sure it does not happen again with justice breyer. he's really healthy, he runs, but i think the concern is whether or not the democrats are going to be able to hold onto this really slim majority they have.

and the concern really boils down to what we saw from republicans after antonin scalia of passed away, obama still had a number of months in office, yet because the democrats did not hold the majority in the senate, they were not able to fill that seat. it said there is pressure on justice breyer to retire, but there are signs he will not do that this term. host: another issue is whether or not they should look at issues of expanding the court. can you talk about what a commission has been tasked with on this and what about the members of the court, what is their position on this? guest: i will take the second question first. the supreme court itself does not really like the issues the commission will take on. we saw justice ginsburg and justice breyer really say that the issues the commission is going to be looking at is something that could threaten the reputation of the court and

make it seem like another political institution. but i guess that depends on what the commission comes up with. so this is a commission that has a really broad, you know, mission. it will be looking at whether or not not add seats -- not to add seats to the supreme court, to do things like jurisdiction stripping, which is a little less political, but would still have a big impact on the court. then they will write a report. they will not make recommendations. so, this is more along the lines of a fact-finding mission. host: let's hear from flint, michigan with michael on the democrats line. caller: hi. i have a -- well, i have a question, statement and a couple comments. my first question -- i do not

pretend to be politically savvy, but the first question is in the constitution i thought we were supposed to be separated from religion. and it seems like the abortion argument is religious in content. so, i do not understand why we keep having this argument about abortion, when it is basically religiously motivated and republicans have adopted that because they are christian based. host: let our guest tack on that aspect. guest: sure. i think you are right, and a lot of the things motivating people's views on abortion have to do with their religious beliefs, but with a supreme court that is not the question. we see those on the right

saying, we think everybody should have this belief, but instead saying that this is something that the legislators, and the people should be tackling, not something the judiciary should be tackling. host: from ohio, holland on the republican line. caller: i thought that killing and maiming a person was against the law and punishable by death or life in prison. if we are sucking a child out of a woman, what is that except killing or maiming? and i think as human beings, we should be really sad to do this. if we were doing this to animals, believe me, we would have a riot on our hands. and we are doing this to human beings. host: ok. guest: i think that that is the question the supreme court is

really going to be tackling. how much of an influence can society, can state legislators have on this decision a woman makes, and where are the lines that the courts should draw to when it is the woman's decision versus when society has a say in it. those are the lines the supreme court will be drawing. host: as far as the court and justices themselves, they have been hearing arguments by phone due to covid. are they expected to do that again in the fall? guest: we have not had any official word on whether or not that will change, but all of the justices for several months now have been fully vaccinated. remote arguments have been interesting. it has changed the dynamic in the court. we've seen justice thomas, who famously had gone 10 years without asking a question, is

now a really active participant. one thing i will say is it makes it really hard to determine where the justices are on any of these cases. i mentioned the affordable care act case, it seemed like the conservative justices were not on board, but this has made it hard to tell where they will come out ultimately. host: kimberly robinson, who covers the supreme court for bloomberg law, you can go to bloomberg law.com for more from here. the house of representatives is set to vote today on developing a 9/11 style commission to investigate the events of january 6. we're going to get your thoughts on whether you support or oppose that proposal. if you support the forming of the commission, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. we will take those calls when we continue.

♪ announcer: coming up today on c-span, the houses back at 10:00 a.m. eastern for general speeches, legislative business at noon. members will debate and vote on a bill that establishes an independent commission to review the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. at 10:30 a.m. on c-span2, the senate considers a resolution that would repeal a trump era rule from the equal employment opportunity commission that changed the settlement process for workplace discrimination claims. and on c-span3, a doctor is at a senate appropriations subcommittee hearing to testify on the president's budget request for the centers for disease control and prevention. that's at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at 3:00 p.m., the house administration committee reviews possible changes to the u.s. capitol police in response to the january 6 u.s. capitol attack.

and here is a look at what is live on our website. at 9:30 a.m. eastern, a house judiciary subcommittee marks the centennial of a race massacre in oklahoma with testimony from survivors and outside groups dedicated to upholding the historical certificates of that event.a at 10:00 a.m., a hearing on border security resources with the acting commissioner of u.s. customs. and at 10:30 a.m., energy secretary jennifer granholm testifies on the president's 0 2022 budget request for her department. host: the house vote scheduled today on whether or not to form a commission on that january 6 riots. the boston globe writing this morning, saying absent the

insurrection, the reelection of trump may have been possible. but as much as trump would like to rewrite history, he will not succeed. it is more likely than not that the congress will investigate the storming of the capital with the commission, an antidote for amnesia or airbrushing. the fault will land where it belongs, with congressional republicans. the fact that mccarthy opposes such a commission, despite a deal with allies, and the commission that nancy pelosi made to the gop to get that agreement illustrates the contorted positions republicans must adopt to protect trump. and mark davis writes, let's make this simple, no republican show sign onto this nonsense and any that does will be shaded with the same as liz cheney. it will have two goals, savagery

of the trump legacy and those refusing to board this crazy train will draw the usual slanders, and they will be charged that they are downplaying the resurrection, as their only way to show disapproval of the january 6 occurrences to join this twisted inquisition. you can find more on that at the town hall website. we want to know what you think, with you support or oppose the creation of the commission. on our support line from little rock, arkansas, this is from alan. good morning. caller: good morning. a little slip there reading the passage. we'll not comment on that. i'm a trump supporter. and i am absolutely in favor of pushing this so called

investigation. because there's two or three quick comparisons to make. if you google any of this, many of the democrats were fired from office because they intentionally pulled back the police, knowing that this riot would occur. and they exploited that to criticize the president for a long time. host: how does that relate to the commission vote? caller: we need to investigate how the -- let me make a quick point. i looked this up to confirm it. the divide the right crowd,

which none of us supports, they try to have another rally in 2018. it says they had like 30 or 40 people that showed up. that there were several hundred -- host: because we are talking about the vote today, you support it -- why? caller: i am explaining why. they had hundreds of thousands of protesters against those conservative alt-right characters, but only 20 or 30 showed up. host: we will go to roger, who opposes the effort. good morning. caller: yeah, i oppose it because basically it's being launched by speaker lucy. -- by speaker nancy pelosi. i want to bring up one more subject on this. host: sticking to the subject we

are talking about, why do you think it will not be a fair one? caller: because of pelosi. ashley was killed, the only fatality. and that is listed as a homicide. host: the commission is five republicans and five democrats, the chair will be appointed by the chair and vice chair. when it comes to the task at they are facing, it would look at the facts and circumstances of the attack. they will have a final report due by december 31 of this year. when it comes to their work, they will have subpoena authority. this is from jean on the support line. caller: i'm a 23 year law enforcement police veteran and i support this.

there's reasons why. criminal acts took place. it appears that this was well organized, not only from 1600 pennsylvania avenue. we need to get to the bottom of this. remember the two o's, observation and objectivity. host: do you think an independent commission will do something different than what is already being investigated by congress? caller: as long as they have the freedom to investigate, and then have the freedom to put together a conclusion. host: david in katy, texas on the oppose line. caller: thank you for taking my call. one thing that stands out to me is the fact many people are styling this is a 9/11 type commission. that should be offensive to anybody who lost family in 9/11 because there is no comparison. and so we have an unarmed

protest, no firearms turned up from the people going into the capitol building. i do not see how we can objectively investigate that when we already have people calling it organized and an insurrection. there was nothing organized about this, especially when you have the capitol police taking selfies with these people. host: is that more about the way the investigation is conducted versus the circumstances surrounding the investigation? caller: i heard you earlier talking about how it will be bipartisan and i read about that as well. the frightening part is people are just trying to protect themselves, especially when you look at liz cheney and the association of anything that has to do with donald trump. i do not know if there are republicans on this commission that can be objective. when you are calling something where they had no firearms, i am sure there was an obscure person

that may be had a gun a mile away, but you are calling this an insurrection -- people need to read history. host: that is david. speaking of other issues concerning president trump, yahoo! news reported that the new york attorney general's office has informed the trump organization that it is investigating its company, now a criminal investigation, working with the manhattan office that has been investigating the organization for insurance fraud. it was letitia james announcing in 2019 that the office was investigating the finances of the trump organization, now the nature of that has changed. a spokesperson for the attorney general said on tuesday, "we are now actively investigating the trump organization in a criminal capacity, along with the manhattan d.a." he did not comment further. that is one of several things making news aside from the vote

on the commission in the house of representatives. they will be forming an independent commission with democrats and republicans to investigate the matters of january 6. the majority leader commented himself, responding to the minority leader in the house, opposing such an effort. here's senator chuck schumer. sen. chuck schumer: i saw mccarthy's 11th hour inquisition. it shows how difficult it is to work with the republican leaders. if they throw them under the bus, why do they participate in negotiations at all? we will see with the house's voters light, but i want to be clear. i will put the january 6 commission legislation on the floor of the senate for a vote, period. republicans can let their constituents know, are they on

the side of truth or do they want to cover up for the insurrection for donald trump? a lot of what mccarthy asked about is a vote this way to avoid focusing on what really happened on january 6, but we will have a vote. host: stephanie from brooklyn on the support line. caller: i do agree that there should be a commission. they had a hearing last week and the majority of republicans were in denial, saying there was no insurrection. when one of them from georgia was holding the doors for the rest of the members in the chamber. i could not see why he would say there was not an insurrection. these folks are in total denial. mccarthy knows, he knows he talked to donald trump. that's why he is afraid.

he is afraid of being subpoenaed. these are cowards, cowards in the republicans. host: we will hear from paul in myrtle beach who opposes the effort. go ahead. caller: i think that everything on the media now is still all about trump, and the republicans, and the media is not focusing on what is happening. i think we need to move on. there was a thing that i hope that people who could not vote for trump can come to their senses and put the republicans back in power in 2022. host: next is ken from fort lauderdale, florida. he's on the support line. caller: i supported because i think that -- have no backbone at all. i'm a retired veteran and i think it is stupidity that they sit there and lie that this did

not happen. host: why do support this form of investigation? caller: because the democrats have bent over backwards, they have agreed to all the things that they asked for, the republicans asked for. there are five members of each. if republicans are going to keep doing stupid stuff, i hope they never get reelected. host: five commissioners and a chair, five commissioners and a vice as part of the process or part of the legislation that will be voted on today. from new jersey on the oppose line, bill. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on. caller: i oppose it. hello? the reason i oppose it is because the congress, for the term of trump, did nothing but

waste time instead of doing to been good for the american people. now that donald trump is gone, they are still wasting time going after trump, wasting time of the people in not doing things for the country. this is the worst administration i have ever seen. it's a crazy house. host: why is a waste of time to investigate the events of january 6? caller: there is no reason to investigate it. they're fed up with the congress. that's the reason. they're fed up with what the congress is doing. they're fed up with the stagnation and doing things that are stupid and against logic. host: bill in new jersey. another perspective on these events, this is from the senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, talking about the republican stance on the commission.

[video clip] >> i think i am safe and categorizing our conference as willing to listen to the arguments about whether such a commission is needed. one thing i think we need to bear in mind is hundreds of arrests have already occurred. the attorney general is pursuing many more. there's a serious criminal investigation going on right now. would the commission interfere in any way with the criminal investigations and the law enforcement activities is a query. and we need to read the fine print. even though the commission appears to be balanced, my staff tells me that in fact the majority, the chair, who will be

determined by nancy pelosi in chuck schumer, control all of the -- and chuck schumer, control all of the --. i'm not saying we are going to decide this should not go forward, but if it does go forward it should be clearly balanced, not tilted, so we have an objective evaluation. we are undecided about the way forward at this point. we want to read the fine print. and if the majority leader puts it on the floor, we'll react accordingly. host: that was the minority leader of the senate, mitch mcconnell. another story taking place out of arizona, and mariposa county, where the recount of the election is taking place, saying that county supervisors blasted karen phan on monday, accusing her of a mockery made of the election process with her audit.

stephen riker prepared a letter responding to her questions, they called them accusations from everything from the handling of the ballots so whether a database was deleted. that they were delivered to auditors. in each case they said either the information is false or they cannot provide what she wants. each official, who also lashed out at phan, including the senator prescott, they says she has effectively given over the senate powers to cyber ninjas, an outside firm that has no audit experience, but is now using the audit to raise money. "i want to make it clear i will not be responding to anymore requests from this sham process." that was the chairman of the board. you can find that on the tucson news. now we have robert from pennsylvania. caller: people in charlottesville, i was born and raised there, and the people

know nothing about it. i was raised as a steel worker. we went down to the capital to meet representatives. how did these people know where these offices were? i do not know how they did that. why didn't the republicans, they say they were such wonderful people, why were they hiding? why didn't they go out and say, hey, let's have a sit down? host: what is your support of the commission? caller: my support is i want to find out how much information did they know, how did they know where the offices were? like i said, i was a union rep, and i went down there and i needed an escort to tell me where the offices were, so how did they get that information? host: pam in michigan. caller: i am tired of rehashing the same old things. i would prefer that they put a

committee together to find out why the police are not working on the border. these people's lives are being turned upside down as they come into the country. host: why not look -- why not an outside look at the january 6 events? caller: because that is old news. we have already moved past that. for the past five years, we have had committees after committees. and they are doing other things that the american people should be aware of, what the american people should be aware of is not being dealt with. host: chris in arizona. caller: i'm calling in opposition to the committee because of one thing -- all we have seen accomplished is more division amongst us as americans. it's really sad to see that even

c-span has a role in this. when you read that article from phoenix about the audit, it's really sad because it is a good audit and it should be done. i think that every state should do an audit. it is not a recount, it's an audit. host: why do you oppose the commission? caller: it will not do anything but divide us more. as you can see, the angst between the leader of our country, the leader of the senate and of the way that they are -- these people need to get out. they have gotten rich off of us, they do not represent us anymore. host: as far as the commission's work, even if it is an independent commission you do not think it will accomplish anything? caller: i do not think there should be any politicians on any commission of this sort. there was a caller who laid it

on the line. this was not an insurrection. people calling this an insurrection neither heads checked. host: on other news, the military times putting out that the armed services committee, ranking members, and mike rogers of alabama, of come out in opposition of a quick reaction force for capitol hill secreted. "they should not militarize the security of the complex. " if you go to the military times website, there is a write up on the air national guard that would receive $2 million to set up a force to respond to violence on capitol hill under a $1.9 billion security supplemental, that was unveiled on friday. the package also includes $521 million for operations of the

ongoing guard deployment to protect congress. this story adding that the reimbursement costs matc thath amount of money for future -- match the amount of money for future projects like preventing people onto the grounds and future protests. frank is in california, go ahead. caller: i think one of the reasons why, as a federal law enforcement officer, we need to know the truth. the public needs to know the truth. they have the intel or whatever. january 6 was a sad day. i have been on capitol hill many times and to see the things that happened. my brothers and sisters, who serve and protect the capitol, and the law enforcement family, that is what we do. we need to find out questions

and answers to make it safer and better. congress needs to do their due diligence to find out the truth, because those police officer serve and protect them every day. host: should congress do it themselves, aside from all the investigations they are doing, but should they appoint this commission to do that? what is the better route? caller: i believe they should do an independent commission, just so it will be fair and balanced. maybe have one person on the commission from both parties, and to look at it, but they seriously need to find out why it happened, because they get the information. they should know. everyday we protect and serve our country and we put our lives on the line. it was very sad to see what was happening to our brothers and sisters on capitol hill. congress needs to do their job in making sure that we find the truth and let the public know. host: margaret in lincoln,

nebraska. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i'm against this commission. but here is another's digestion -- another suggestion. they could possibly do a commission with pelosi, chuck schumer, waters, and those who are trying to divide our country. there's so much hate against trump. host: let's start with the commission being voted on today, why are you against it? caller: because it is not going to be a fair commission. think about it. wasn't there an insurrection with the people banging on the doors of the supreme court not very long ago? host: you said it will not be fair, why is that? caller: because they have no idea who inside -- incited that.

you are right, donald trump was there. but nancy pelosi was the senate leader. she should have been on top of it. host: she is the house speaker. caller: i know she is. but she was on top of this whole blessed thing -- if she was on top of this whole blessed thing, it would not have happened. ok, let me say -- host: we got your point. tim in arkansas, you are next. caller: i do not see any commission that nancy in charge of selecting would be fair. she needs to be the witness on the stand. the capitol police need to be under oath on the stand. host: collectively they will be chosen by republicans and democrats equally. caller: sure, a bunch of

political hacks. but the same techniques they used all summer long, when there is a protest, you hold the police back until the rioters get done. c-span has their own tapes. i do not know why you are not doing an investigation. trump was still speaking when the fighting started. host: how does that relate to your opposition to the commission? caller: i do not see -- unless they are going to make a commission that investigates obama-biden coup that started after trump was elected, because this january 6 was planned from a group as part of their comeback effort. host: tim in arkansas. if you go to politico, they are compiling their own count of people who may vote,

particularly republicans, who might vote for the commission. naysayers saying some of the people who could be on the commission include one who co-authored the deal, liz cheney, dan newhouse of washington state, major from michigan, adam kinzinger of illinois, and jaime herrera butler of washington state. the one question on republicans is the representative of california who is a close mccarthy ally. some people on board include representative bacon, representative joyce. and they also look at potential yeses, including tom reed of new york, a freshman from new jersey, and it goes on from there. political has a working list off republicans who could vote on this legislation.

expected to happen today. stay tuned to c-span for how that works out and our website c-span.org. will have representatives to talk about the issue themselves. first we will talk to dina titus of nevada then later on larry bushong. -- buvschon-- bucshon. ♪

♪ >> listen to the c-span podcast book notes plus this time with the wall street journal editorial board number and editorialist -- and journalist. book notes plus. subscribe where you get podcast. more about the podcasts at c-span.org/podcast. ♪ >> washington journal continues. host: our first representative, dena titus, she serves on the infrastructure committees, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: where are you out on voting for this commission? guest: i am in favor of this. i sit on the homeland security,

compromise was reached between the chairman and the ranking member. i think we need it and the american people deserve to know what happened and how be prevented. it was not just the capitol building, it was our democracy. trying to change the way we have a peaceful transition to power. we need an expert to look at it and be sure that we prevent it from occurring. host: there are many republican arguments against this going along the lines that we have investigations going on in congress and other bodies. why the need for an outside one? guest: different committees are looking at different aspects. when congress gets involved it will be political. that is why we needed to be more like the 9/11 commission, outside people looking at it from 89 political point of view. balance between the parties nominate -- party's nominees

giving an assessment and recommendations. host: whether be targeted or will politics play until the recommendations play out? guest: part of the compromise of getting this, kevin mccarthy's are going with her even though he got the concessions. you do not go in with pre-conclusions. it is wide open. that is why i think the conclusions and recommendations will be fair and accurate. host: how do you think that people make that pledge? or hold them to that standard? guest: you pick the best people you can. you do not allow anybody who are elected officials or holding office to be on the commission. you pick security experts. top security people even from the trump administration saying that this is a good idea, they have enough integrity and want to save our democracy that will

make the correct decision. host: you mention house minority leader in the comments he made, what was the reaction when you heard that? guest: it was not surprising, he does not want to testify if he was called in to talk about the phone call he had on the six with the president. i am sure that they do not want that to come out again. they do not want the facts. because they look bad. use how many of them voted not to, except to -- voted not to accept the results of the auction. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, independents (202) 748-8002. text us your questions or thoughts out -- at (202) 748-8003. looking at this, when it comes to the subpoena power of this commission, what determines he

will get a subpoena -- who will get a subpoena? guest: the commission does have subpoena power. this was one of the recommendations that mccarthy demanded, you cannot just have the chairman get a subpoena. you have to have a majority of the committee or agreement between the cochairs. that keeps it from getting political. make sure subpoenas are issued the way they are intended. host: leader mccarthy also says that it must include other rents like the republican baseball game where people were attacked or the events recently of april 2, should those be added? guest: this is about an attack on the capital and our democracy and the transition of power. i spent 35 years teaching clinical signs and this is one of our hallmarks of our system. other events can be investigated in other contexts. host: one of these things is the

supplemental bill being considered, a great deal of money but half of that going for reimbursement of the national guard, other persons like fencing, window hardening, what is the justification? guest: to keep the capital safe, member safed, police officers safe and press save. -- safe. we have gotten an assessment of the need for training, equipment hardening of the borders. i hate to see that fence. it tears my heart out to see that we are some third world country where we have to have a fence around the capitol. the national guard stepped up from so many states, compensating them for the time and effort is right. host: this includes protecting judges and courts and prosecutors, why that?

guest: they are all involved in the process. you see those protections that exist at the state level as well. host: representative dena titus, our guest, first call from wisconsin on the line for democrats. you are on. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i welcome the investigation into the january 6 commission. x president trump -- ex -president trump provoked us, republicans sat idly by while he told his conspiracy theories along with qanon representatives number -- in our house and senate. that is against our democracy.

they try to prove that on january 6 pipe making sure that -- by making sure that votes will not go through for president biden. republicans are afraid of what will come up. some of these leaders that are voted in that arguing on, will be found out that they allowed this to happen. they allowed people to come into thought capitol -- that cap itol to see the layout of the building. host: thank you. guest: i am inclined to agree with you. a lot of that information we have gotten from hearsay, videos , tweets those same people sent out bragging about the attack. if we have a commission of experts, that is nonpartisan, they will get to the bottom of it.

republicans are afraid for the facts. host: do you think that there is insight collaboration between people inside and outside? guest: some of the members went to the rally with the president where he urged people to go to the capitol. some of them showed them around the building, showing them where to go, we need to have this committee, investigate, find out the truth. host: from mississippi, republican line, curtis is next. caller: why i have seen on tv one time that nancy pelosi's son-in-law was outside the capital talking to the guy with the buffalo hat on from antifa.

nobody has ever said anything to her, put it on the radio, act on the television. are they hiding something? was the anti-ferment getting instructions -- antifa man getting instructions? host: finish your thought. guest: she stopped the police from taking more stringent rules about killing more people into the-- host: thanks. representative titus. guest: i've not heard that, i do not know what your source of news is. the guy with a antler head was not antifa, he broke into the capitol. he has been arrested and they have his back on. if that is a problem, let's have the commission look at it, find

out the truth, tell the american people. if a comes from an independent commission, then you should believe the results. you know how to believe me, nancy pelosi or msnbc. you can believe the results that will come from a commission, five members appointed by democrats, five by republicans. not elected officials who will look into the facts. who make a recommendation by the end of the of things we need to do to subs -- secure democracy. host: the attorney general and fbi are investigating january 6, if that is the case, what can this commission find that they cannot? guest: they will look at it from an overall perspective. when the mpi looks at it, they will look at it from the criminal standpoint. with to look at it from the standpoint of saving democracy. that is a broader issue. host: if a final report is due

by the end of this year is there enough time to form this commission, do a thorough investigation and have it done? guest: that is our goal, we would like this done sooner rather than later. so we can put in place some recommendations. if they cannot finish, we can extend the deadline. you do not wanted to come into next year because that is an election year and that runs the risk of it becoming undersized. host: is it a goal to keep it from being extended into next year? guest: that would be michael -- my goal. host: from florence, kentucky, line for democrats. hello. caller: one thing you need to look out is the background of these groups. the proud boys want civil wars so they can bring in their own screwed up version of government.

they were ready for overthrowing the government. sam at the american 3% and oath keepers. they want their own christian government in power. this is what it was about, the start of a new civil war. if you look into recent statements, you will see it plainly. the groups want to overthrow the existing government. they do not like civil rights, the things that went on. they want to go back to the way it was. host: thank you. guest: you see that merging with the confederate flags in the capitol talking about going back to the way it was. there is investigation going on of these groups. you have seen that from the justice department. we have had testimony in the homeland security committee, that right wing terrorists are

the greatest threat. people who are in this country are supposed to outside terrorists. there is a lot of investigation going on. i think appropriately so. host: vera texas -- a viewer texts us, saying that the report will not matter because it will be rejected like the mueller probe. guest: i do not think it is a written down pretty condition -- precondition, the goal was to make it as transparent as possible. that was an investigation into an individual. this is into saving democracy, which demands transparency. demands participation. we will be sure to put out the results of this. just like the 9/11 commission report. host: massachusetts, rosario. good morning.

caller: i am a democrat, i am an american. i want to know what happened that day. we have the right to know. what's all this baloney? we own the congress, presidency. if it was on the other shoe, do they think they would let democrats slide without an investigation? when my has got attacked, please got rated and president trump is standing to the side, watching it on tv for five hours? what kind of democracy is that? host: thank you. guest: i agree. donald trump said let's march on the capital and encourage people

and he did not do anything to stop the violence. at the end, he said go home, we love you, our hearts are with you and we will remember this day forever. that does not sound like the present we want, encouraging people to storm our capitol. this is our capitol, the american people's. i am your representative, i am here because you elected me. you have a right to know what is going on. and on that day. who was involved, who said what, who encouraged what appeared where these folks came from, got the resources? all of that can come out? host: what is likely a former president trump testifying? guest: he probably should, if forced to come he will probably plead the fifth.

you have enough evidence of him on tape. that is how a lot of information was found, by people involved. a lot of people were tweeting, taking videos, bragging about them, showing them around on social media. host: do you think that the similar type of information from the impeachment hearing will be reported -- repeated? guest: will be after the commission to see what they need to look at. i will not second-guess them. they will be the experts. some of that information will come out. host: paul in nashville, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to say, i am so proud of our military. they go out and do their job every day. it is a thankless job.

whatever we have to do to protect the capitol, what we have from our own people and i hate to be saying that. we are our own worst enemy. nobody can agree on anything without a study having been performed. if you look at it on its face, what happened was that president trump incited this riot and encouraged the american people, those like-minded individuals, to follow him and storm the capitol building. i've delegated is -- i feel like it is a republican one-sided view, regardless of republican or democrat, it is not a

political issue, is an issue that the supreme court would say most likely -- if i were a supreme court justice, and i had to be a judge let's look at it on its face. let's deal with it. if we have to increase security let's do so. host: we got your point. guest: i hear some sadness in your voice. i sure that, it breaks my heart when i see those pictures. we were hunkered down and did not realize how bad it wasn't until the video kept coming out. every morning, i drive to work and see that building and that gives a tug at my heart. if it did not, i should not be here. what a privilege and honor to

work and that building. not just the hallmark of democracy in this country but all around. it should not be political. both party should want to protect our capitol, police officers. one died. our national guard, the military, has a thankless task. these are not political issues, they are american issues. we need to remember that and come back to those ideals. host: august served not only on the homeland security committee but the infrastructure and transportation committees. there is a debate on what exactly is infrastructure, and particularly president biden's plan on the social program side of it. how do you define infrastructure? guest: broadly. you have to go big or go home, cobalt or home.

we have to invest in this country. i do not see it as an expenditure, i see it as an investment. we have to build back better as the president likes to say. we passed the recovery act and that is helping us getting through this virus. the numbers are improving. people are getting vaccinated. going back to the old is not good enough. we have to compete with china. we have to bring people who were left behind into the middle class and help them stay in the middle class. we're talking about the internet, a lot of people in rural nevada, in the inner-city, children do not have access to the internet. education depends on that. the internet is like electricity. you need to look at the internet , sustainability, and really needs roads and bridges. which desperately need to be fixed.

you have to have a broad definition. host: as far as the roads and bridges portion, what would you like to see the focus on? particularly your state. guest: nevada needs infrastructure, when the access to the rest of the southwest. some of the things i am working on his passenger rail to los angeles. right now those highways are flawed. we need an interstate from las vegas to phoenix because we're the only two metropolitan area s in the country not connected by interstate. people have lead pipes, we need improvements and waterproofing -- in water. in nevada we had to move people and products. we do not make anything in nevada except dreams come true.

everything has to be imported. we need an airport that is 21st century, that can international flights and travelers. this infrastructure package is important to my district. the big thing about it besides being good for the environment and improving access to markets is it creates jobs. it will create thousands of jobs are the biggest jobs producing bill since the new deal. that's what we need people back to work and good union jobs. host: from florida, republican line. caller: good morning, i wanted to ask ms. titus how does she feel about the infrastructure being taken away from the wall? there are so worried about being protected at the capitol, the ones who went in there were thugs. not everybody at that deal were

thugs. democrats need to quit that just like antifa and blm or bml. why aren't you investigating them and when they went through and torn up and weren-- burned? this country should matter on being at law correctly. you are wanting to let people that are gang members that are illegal stay. are you kidding me? and you jumped trumped from day one -- trump from day one? host: we will leave it there. guest: you use a broadbrush when you refer to you guys.

nobody condoned violence from any group, no matter what group it was. there will be investigations to look into who did any crimes. that is not part of looking into the attack on our democracy. we are not taking money from the wall to put into infrastructure, donald trump took money from the military, our military, officers, soldiers, he took money from them to build a wall. i have never seen a walk that somebody could not climb over, crawl under, it does not work. it does not serve the purpose. we need another way to deal with the border and that is what the person is doing that with his comprehensive immigration reform. which i support. you do not have to go after trump, he did it himself and biked about it. that he was impeached twice --

bragged about it. that he was impeached twice as what kind of person that he was. his organization is under criminal investigation by the attorney general of new york. that will play out in the courts separate from what we have done to him. host: use of on the foreign affairs committee. i wanted to ask about the handling of what is going on between israel and gaza? are we doing enough to limit or reduce the conflict? guest: everybody wants to see the conflict stopped. right now the president has made that statement, he is working behind the scenes. phone calls have been made to encourage israel to stop the fighting. his stance by the position that israel has a right to defend itself. host: the recent decision by the fellow government to sell 730 $5

million of arms to israel as this is going on, is this something you approved of? guest: we have a long-standing military relationship with israel, we have provided funding for them for the iron room that protects them from missile attacks, as well as sale of arms. that did not come as a result of this situation. that is long-standing through democrats and republicans. host: robin in carlsbad, california, you're next. caller: good morning. i have wanted to call in for the longest time, regarding january 6. you panned across the capitol, there was nobody there. i was expecting this huge force.

calls were coming in to your show, weeks previous to the sixth where people were saying thought they were going to the capitol. brian stelzer with cnn was psyched about his book, eight minutes in, a woman called in outraged and stated that they are sending their sons to fight and take it down. we have local person who is very involved, there that day. who was part of a big rally in a san diego county. -- was also present at that rally, this document talked about arm yourselves, take our country back, answer trump's call.

trump won, fund our movements, he gave instructions on how to cover tattoos and have items covered. host: we are running short on time. what would you like her to address? caller: i heard the layout for the security of the l -- of the capitol and i hope we can follow through. guest: that is one of the things that we have to look at. our police were not equipped to deal with that invasion. there were not trained to do it. we cannot get the national guard to backup our officers. they put themselves on the line. you saw the pictures of them getting beaten with bats and

anything people could pick up. one person was struck by a fire extinguisher. it was a nightmare. they performed valiantly. those groups came to do damage. from all over the country. i am not surprised that there was somebody in california giving tips on how to make this come about. host: representative dena titus, democrat from nevada, who serves on numerous committees, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: another perspective from a republican of indiana, serves on the energy and commerce subcommittee on health. he will join us next when we return. ♪

>> coming up today on c-span, the house is back at 10:00 is doing for general speeches, legislative business at noon. members will debate and vote on a bill that establishes an independent commission to review the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. at 10:00 -- at 10:30 on c-span2, as senate resolution that would repeal a trump era rover and the equal employment opportunity commission that changed the settlement process for workplace discrimination claims. on c-span3, dr. rochelle walensky is at an approach -- a senate appropriations committee about the budget request for the center for disease control and prevention. that is at 10:00 eastern. at their p.m. house

administration committee reviews possible changes to the was capitol police in response to the capital attack -- capitol attack. at 9:00 eastern, the center the other, raise massacre with testimony from survivors and outside groups dedicated to public the historic significance of the event. at 10:00, a hearing on border security resources with the acting commissioner of u.s. customs. at 10:30, energy secretary jennifer granholm testifies on the 2022 budget request for her department. >> c-span shop -- c-spanshop.or g, every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. order a copy of the congressional directorate with

contact information for members of congress and the biden administration cabinet. browse our newest products. >> washington journal continues. host: the house coming in at 10:00, we expect to be joined been -- joined by representative larry buschon in just a few mice. concerning the committee that is set to be voted on today, independent commission taking a look at the events of january 6. we will take up the conversation with him, just a few stories other than the work of the commission and the news of the commission. there is a centered president biden -- sign that president biden might look at pardon sooner. the effort is being overseen by the white house counsel's office

and justice department, a rebuke of former president trump's clemency that bypassed the justice department and relied on an ad hoc network of friends and allies resulting in a wave of late pardons and limitations for people with wealth and connections. mr. biden's team is looking at as sacred status established a marks delivery, systemic mission of mercy. the president wasn't ms. kentucky about the infrastructure efforts. seeing electric cars as the future, the future of the auto industry is electric, he says there is no turning back in a speech calling for the united states to catch up. the real question is whether we will lead or fall behind. he will build these cars and the batteries are in them? -- that are in them?

a commission looking into terry six, here to talk about that is representative larry buschon of indiana. guest: thank you for having me. host: what are you thinking? guest: it was an attack on the capitol, attempted insurgency based on the election results. the security situation was not adequate. that needs investigation. there are ongoing investigations in the senate and house. conceptually, i support a commission. it appears that even though we have made strides towards bipartisanship, the speaker's office continues to control the process. my concern is with the proposal. i have not decided on how i will vote. the proposal allows the staff to be appointed by the majority.

it will not be a balance commission -- balanced commission. i want to know, they may people want to know why we were not prepared to protect our capito l. host: talk about your concerns with staffing. is it independent staff from both sides? guest: i have no doubt the appointees they're not going to be congressman or congresswoman will be barred -- be bipartisan. it appears to me and leader mccarthy thought there will be inherent bias based on the ability to appoint staff by the speaker, that is not bipartisan. we started our initial proposal with seven members appointed by the democrats and only four by the republicans. we have come a long way. the american people do not want another partisan commission,

there to criticize one side or another. there is couple ability to go around. the speaker's office knew about some of the intelligence and did not do anything, did not act. the the president giving a speech on the national mall -- you have the person giving a speech on the national mall, which some people feel like incited the actions that day. host: when it comes to the minority leader, talking against the commission, downplaying it. what was your reaction? guest: it does not surprise me. he felt like and many of us but like the speaker's office was controlling -- felt like the speaker's office was controlling the direction. it has come along long way with equal novembers -- people members played by republicans and democrats. with staffing members that is not the case. host: you said you are not

decided yet. what are the issues you have to work through? guest: i need to confirm that the staffing would be appointed equally amongst republicans and democrats. that is part of the problem when you have a staff that controls the process, it does not matter who is on the commission. if it is appointed by the democrats it will direct the narrative. i think john katko from new york has done the best job he can to get as close to a bipartisan commission. we will see if a number -- a fair number of republicans vote yes, but i'm not convinced. host: representative larry buschon of indiana, joining us for this conversation until the house comes in. (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 republicans, independents (202) 748-8002.

first call for you comes from peggy, she is in washington state, a for democrats. you are on -- line for democrats. you are on. caller: i would like to know if this is an inside job, members of congress were seen giving tours to individuals that were at the riots the next day. there was a deliberate video on periscope where pro-trump activist claimed that he received help from three gop congressmen to organize the attacked. -- organize the attack. that they wanted to change the hearts and minds of some republicans. guest: i do not think that there was any insight input from members of congress on other sites. -- inside input from members of congress on other -- either

sides. member countries give towards all the time, the people from the incident working towards, i don't think any member congress had anything to do with inciting this. i think there is a vertical narrative. host: what is your concern about the ability of the commission to come up with an established set of facts? guest: at the end of the day, the report may very well reveal all of the facts. as the process goes along. if there is a decision to subpoena somebody, it has to be the chairperson on one side of the aisle at the top person on the others, they have to agree on whether to subpoena. i can see where the speaker will want to have president trump

subpoenaed and republicans will object. this people run up to the microphone and state republicans do not want the truth. it could happen in the opposite direction. we could want to subpoena the speaker on her role on that day. democrats would object and that would give republicans a political advantage in front of the microphone. the make and do not want that. -- american people do not want that. we want to commission not influenced by elected politicians. i have concern about whether we can do that. host: from glenn in california, republican line. caller: good morning america. how about having a commission on scene with this virus came from, a 500,000 americans died. that is representative's jobs. the border is wide open with

fentanyl, a weapon of mass distraction. you can put it on doorknobs, car doors, that will kill you instantly. that comes from china. let's represent the united states. let's do your jobs. not be political like pelosi, schumer and these guys. they do not want to work for us, they are working for themselves. look outwards their families are look how -- look how rich their families are. guest: one of the concerns with the commission is the scope. we need to investigate what happened with antifa attacks last summer. we need to find out why we had a capitol police officer recently killed on campus. where that came from. we need to have a scope on all

kinds of these insurgencies or domestic violence issues. speaker pelosi and the democrats want to focus on the president trump and republicans but not look at all of these other issues that are going on. as far as fat no, i have been to the border, what is happening is the cartels control the border. they bring a bunch of people across in one area, diverting attention of border security forces. then they want drugs across the border -- run drugs across the border in another area. the cartels control the border on the mexican side and the current administration has a vertical narrative about the race of the people in the country they are coming from. they are ignoring the fact the problem of unaccompanied minors and others is only one part of the issue. the drugs are a huge part of the

issue, they are getting into every state. host: overcast serves the state of tennessee, eighth district of indiana. your thoughts on the recent cdc guidance on masks? guest: it has been a long time coming. if you look at the history of vaccinations, it is pretty clear if your facts in a properly, you do not get the disease and you do not spread it. i think it has been delayed for political reasons. speaker pelosi is not a lot of members on the housework that are vaccinated -- house floor that are vaccinated to remove masks. kevin mccarthy is going to put up a privileged resolution that we would like this beaker to follow the cdc guidelines. it does not show america that we have confidence in the vaccines when elected members are on the house floor wearing a mask even though they are vaccinated. i am happy they came up with the gardens.

it has been delayed for political reasons. host: there is a headline on the fort yesterday, not wearing a mask, how about that trend? guest: i wear a mask on the floor, as long as the guns apply the speaker's office that you should wear a mask on the housework do that. i do not think it is productive to do what they did. avery agrees with the position, we do not need to wear masks if we are vaccinated. the proper approach is to put up a resolution like leader mccarthy is doing today and talk about the medical aspects which i've been doing about why it is correct for america to not have a mask mandate. host: carol from rapid city, michigan, independent line. caller: thank you c-span.

congressmen i want to know about the insurgency. what was their endgame? why was there a gallows? why did people want to hang mike pence? guest: the endgame was to stop the certification of the electoral college votes from all of the states. and change the outcome of the election. that was not going to happen. the former vice president as a friend of mine. he took the right approach constitutionally, to do his job. that was the end goal change the election. we have rules, laws in our country. if we decide to try to go against those, we do not have a country. one of the best things about america is all of us except-- a

ccept the facts after the case has been litigated. unfortunately for republicans, try connecting not get the majority of the electoral college votes. host: did you want to finish your thought? caller: no, thank you. host: lisa in haymarket, virginia, a for republicans. caller: good morning. i've been a registered republican for 30 plus years. what i do not understand is how any republican cannot support a 9/11 style commission. that they have negotiated, equal dams, republicans. they negotiated that, both the chairs and cochairs have to agree on the subpoenas are going to be.

i literally have a nervousness about me because i am afraid of the way some of the republicans are downplaying this and trying to make it seem like it was no big deal. this was a huge deal. if we can investigate a ran-contra -- iran-contra, benghazi, we can investigate an assault on our capitol. i would beg these republicans around here saying that it was a walk in a park, it has to stop. i appreciate what the representative set about acknowledging what happened with the election and the insurrectionists.

i wish more of his colleagues would do the same. how can he help people like me. i am the white suburban voter, republican that you want. i am so horrified. i do not understand. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: this was a horrific event, it was the first time the capitol was overtaken since 1814. you will not find many elected republicans, that i know personally and the house of representatives, i do not want to speak for everybody, i talked to a lot of people who do not think this was a horrific event. the speaker is getting the results she wants out of this commission. she wants to make it look like it will be bipartisan mission was to influence the 2022 election.

it is already starting to happen. the news media and others are reporting, how come republicans to not support this? it is bipartisan, we want results. the fact is when you look at the fine print, i'm not sure that is true. i want what you want. what all americans want, we want the truth. we want to know what happened. we want to know why into his responsible. -- and who was responsible. this is the strategy of the speaker going into 2022, bills on the floor to make republicans look bad in the eyes of the electorate to maintain her majority. that is her problem with what is she is doing. i have not decided what i have not decided what i'm going to vote. there is substantial concerns about the politics. and the goals.

do we want the truth? i think she does, does she want some clinical fodder going into 2022 -- political fodder going into 2022? host: what do you think about the installation of elise stefanik as republican conference chair? guest: i think she will do a tremendous job, i look forward to her leadership. she is a strong leader. i think she will do a tremendous job. host: as far as the job that liz cheney did, do you disagree with the job she did? guest: i like representative tenney personally, she did a good job as conference chair. i think going into the latter part of this year and next year, you have to have a consistent message on the republican side. our message was being modeled.

that is what i think a lot of members thought. in february we voted to keep her in her position, she is a strong leader. we had eye divergence on message. we cannot have that. -- a divergence on message. we cannot have that. host: fairfax, virginia, democrat line. caller: as far as this commission, i know that there has been on both sides, back and forth. speaker pelosi had originally created a commission, it was more democrats than republicans, i disagreed with that as a moderate. the mccarthy had three demands, she fulfilled every single one and yet he backs away. i would encourage you to vote for this commission, i am not in your district, i cannot control what you do.

as of the who live so close to washington, i feel this personally. 30 minutes away there was an insurgency and it was difficult to watch. do you think that leader mccarthy has any personal to gain? if not, why is he obstructing? guest: leader mccarthy has no personal thing to gain. he wants the truth, that is what the rest of us want. you are already seeing, we have not had the village and you are seeing the comments of the people calling in. that speaker pelosi is getting her way on this. she gives in on a few things, it makes it look bipartisan. then continues to not want to investigate what happened with antifa and other inter--- other insurgencies.

what happened at the statehouse is that was driven by the left, she doesn't want to investigate those. she was to have control over appointing the commission staff. the narrative on tv is that it is going to be bipartisan, it was more bipartisan than it was. this is why this is happening. your receipt republican and democrat -- you are seeing republican and democrat c allers saying it is bipartisan. the media will have a narrative that it is bipartisan, why can't republicans supported? she will get her weight on it, and looking to 2022, use that against republicans who do not vote for it. host: connie in illinois, republican line. caller: good morning.

this is simple to settle. you do not need a committee. you need to get rid of these voting machines that change the votes and quit mailing out 50 million ballots to whoever, wherever. you need to quit letting these governors send people out to harvest votes. we had 186 or 176 people that gave written testimony that this election was not fair, it was rigged. i told my sister, two weeks before the election trump was not going to be president.

she said, sure he is, he has hundreds of thousands of people following him. i said no, he will not. host: thank you. guest: i am looking forward, not backward. a lot of what happened in the most recent election has been litigated in the courts. i will not comment on what happened in the past. we need to look forward. that is why i am against hr one, that the drunkards are proposing. it is the one that takes over the elections federally, takes away the role of the states. in indiana, we have voter id, it would codify ballot harvesting, same-day registration and other things we know that would increase the ability for people to fraudulently vote. i am looking forward.

all of the points, many people believe that. i tried to look forward. it has been litigated. we need to look to defeat hr one to make sure the federal government does not take over the election process to keep democrats in power. that is the goal with this. host: being a medical doctor, one of the things a previous call mentioned was concerns over fentanyl, one of your concerns is opioid addiction. where are we coming out of the pandemic and what the biden administration brings to this? guest: worship them we were before the pandemic. dust worse shape -- worse shape than we were before the pandemic, there is a lot of people with alcohol and drug problems before in the recovery phase have gone bad birds -- gone backwards because of isolation, lack of treatment because they cannot get into the

facilities. it has been a disaster. going for, we need to redouble efforts -- forward we need to redouble efforts. i've been a supporter of expanding the medication assistance treatment for opioid addiction intermingled for the people have lifelong therapy and involvement with the system so they do not backwards. the biden administration will likely keep the focus on this. i don't think you're working to see a substantial change in policy addressing the opioid epidemic. overby on both sides knows it is a bad problem. -- everybody on both sides know it is about problem. my only issues giving drugs from coming across the southern border. the reversed trump administration policies that was making headway -- they reversed

trumpet makes ration policies that was making headway. host: have your a chance to talk with the administration on these issues? guest: not yet. we have not had specific hearings on this. other than bills to expand the use of medication assistive treatment for people addicted. although not, no direct conversations yet. host: representative larry buschon, serves the state of indiana, the eighth district, on the energy and commerce subcommittee on health. thank you for your time and the conversation. guest: you're welcome and thank you for having me. host: the conversation largely dealing with this expected vote on whether or not to establish a nine have 11 -- a 9/11 style commission to look at the events of generally six. if you want to keep in touch and stay close to the debate, we invite you to do so on one of several means that we have as

far as we are concerned. you can watch on our main channel c-span, c-span.org, or you're going to be on the go, you can download our free c-span radio app. that is it for our program today. another addition of washington journal comes your way tomorrow morning. see you then. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org][captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] on capong initutin cperaon with uned stee of preedings for political ioned prohited he u. hoe ofreprestave.